The biggest inconvenience is ponying up the extra cash to purchase a desktop and a laptop. Not everyone can afford to have a nice desktop at home in addition to a laptop on the go.
Microsoft is not, as you say, the only working alternative. First, it's not like ALL AV or firewall software is blocked. Second, and more importantly... in the Knowledge Base article, Microsoft provides links to updated, working versions of the software. This shouldn't even be an issue -- your security software should ALWAYS be the latest version! You'd have a point if software was blocked without vendor approval, or without updates available. But that's not the case. Vendors approved the blocks, updates are available, and SP1 isn't even out to consumers yet. And your speculation about "consent" is just that -- speculation. You and I have no idea how Microsoft and software developers worked out this issue, yet half of your post is dedicated to accusing Microsoft of extortion and anti-trust based purely on speculation with zero facts behind it. Speaking of zero facts, as I mentioned, updates are available, yet you say in your post that vendors have "too little time to have updates available to end users."
Please consider actually reading the links before wasting space in the comments with your fact-free rants.
Tell the company you bought your software from to take a leap; they agreed to the blocking. Or you could, you know, update your security software to the latest, compatible version through the links helpfully provided by Microsoft. Seems like common sense, keeping your security software up to date...
Mod parent down -- and you too. Since you clearly did not take your own advice and follow the links, let me help you out with the facts. The blocked software was blocked with vendor approval. Microsoft's KB article includes links to download current, working versions of affected software.
Read the KB article before you start spreading crap in the comments. Every program listed as blocked was disabled with the approval of the vendor, and links are provided right in the article to updated, supported versions.
And what a failure those products are. Why, the Xbox 360 is only the *second* most popular console out there! And the Zune -- only *some* reviewers called it equal to or better than the iPod! Sometimes I wonder why they don't just give up.
"Apple didn't release Safari for Windows to compete" This must be what it feels like to be in the spin room after a Presidential debate. Someone's distributed the talking points, and now dozens of people are suddenly parroting the exact same line: "This is an SDK. It is not a browser war."
Well, you're half right. It will be easier for Windows users to ensure Safari compatibility when Safari runs on their own systems. But this is also Apple making a play for a share of the Windows browser market. Let's review.
Reuters: "Jobs put Microsoft's dominant Internet Explorer browser squarely in his sights... 'We would love for Safari's market share to grow substantially,' Jobs said... 'We assume Safari for Windows should increase market share and encourage Web site developers to allow for greater compatibility with Safari,' Soleil Equity Research analyst Shannon Cross said."
MacWorld: "A second reason for Apple's expansion into the Windows browser market might be a simple matter of green... The more Safari users, the larger Apple's revenue from its own deal with Google.... 'In addition to the iPhone, there are two things Apple is looking for--increasing overall market share to ensure developers are supporting it [Safari] and bolstering the number of alternatives to Internet Explorer,' [NPD Group analyst Ross] Rubin said.... 'The Mac's market share is great, but we want to grow, and, in order to do that, we have to create a version of Safari on Windows,' Jobs said during his keynote.... 'What we know is that people will love an innovative browser,' said Brian Croll, Apple's senior director of software product marketing. 'We think it will be really popular on Windows.'"
Computerworld: "a major step for Apple into the browser wars... During his speech, Jobs said that Apple simply wants to increase its browser market share, which seems logical."
God help us if someone breaks the chip's encryption. Hackers could gain access to your vehicle's make and model, valuable information that can only otherwise be determined by taking a brief look at your vehicle's exterior.
Gosh, I don't know. What's to prevent the state from forcing us all into labor camps?
Wait a second -- that's ridiculous, you say. Of course it is, but not much more so than your post.
Nobody's talking about constant state monitoring of your vehicle's position. Where in the bill does it say that? Yes, I guess they could, in theory, track your vehicle's location, but they're not doing that.
Save the outrage for when someone actually proposes your scheme.
"Back in the day when LPs were popular, you could buy a disc with just the one song you wanted."
Well, as long as it was the single.
"Now you're force fed tripe from the industry pushing their flavor of the month, big breasted, tiny brained, diva wannabes."
No you're not. The industry has always promoted the artists it thought would sell big, regardless of quality. If you're too damn lazy to look for music that you like, that's your own problem. There are hundreds of CDs released each week, and any good music store has hundreds or thousands of CDs available for purchase. If you go online, you can purchase just about any CD you want. Quality music publications are available both online and off and are filled with reviews of a variety of albums. Take advantage of these resources and find music for yourself instead of complaining that the music industry is still promoting easy to sell artists after all these years.
Because everyone won't have one. This is the real world; you're not going to get universal acceptance of this technology.
And even if you could get one of these pads into every hotel, every workplace, every home, there may still be times when you need a charger. What if you're on the road? Will you need to lug around one of these large pads with a car adapter attachment?
It just seems a bit ridiculous to expect "everyone" to have one of these pads.
Of COURSE it's not on Google's site. Of COURSE the images disappear. Of COURSE other searches yield a 404.
I don't doubt that the editors were well aware that this is not, in fact, google.com; I am sure that samzenpus has a status bar.
This is a mirror of a Google results page. You may have noticed when it was returned by Mirrordot.
Why mirror a Google results page? Because as noted in a Slashdot post just days ago, new Google features are often tested out on specific subnets. If you're not in the subnet, you don't get the feature. So providing a link would be completely worthless for the vast majority of Slashdotters; besides, any link would simply be to a standard Google results page. A screenshot is really the only appropriate route in this case, and if you read through the posts on this story you'll see that multiple users have confirmed the post.
No gurantee you can see it. Google sometimes tests out new features on a specific subnet, as noted in a Slashdot post just days ago, so if you're not in that subnet you're just not going to be able to see the images.
Multiple posters in this thread have verified the post. I believe it.
Not necessarily fake. Here's why you wouldn't link to it: As noted by numerous posters in this thread, and also on a Slashdot FPP just days ago, Google oftentimes rolls out features only to specific subnets. If you're not in that subnet, you don't get to see the feature.
Since the majority of people are unable to see this new feature, it only makes sense to offer a screenshot.
Everyone who thinks this is an elaborate hoax, or that the mirror was intended to be seen as an actual Google.com page, is reading waaaay too much into this.
Slashdot Mirror
Seeing as his Vaio was purchased seven years ago, I'd say it's not really a fair comparison.
The biggest inconvenience is ponying up the extra cash to purchase a desktop and a laptop. Not everyone can afford to have a nice desktop at home in addition to a laptop on the go.
I said a link is provided to a current, working version. A link is indeed provided to a current, working version. Where's the falsehood?
Microsoft is not, as you say, the only working alternative. First, it's not like ALL AV or firewall software is blocked. Second, and more importantly... in the Knowledge Base article, Microsoft provides links to updated, working versions of the software. This shouldn't even be an issue -- your security software should ALWAYS be the latest version! You'd have a point if software was blocked without vendor approval, or without updates available. But that's not the case. Vendors approved the blocks, updates are available, and SP1 isn't even out to consumers yet. And your speculation about "consent" is just that -- speculation. You and I have no idea how Microsoft and software developers worked out this issue, yet half of your post is dedicated to accusing Microsoft of extortion and anti-trust based purely on speculation with zero facts behind it. Speaking of zero facts, as I mentioned, updates are available, yet you say in your post that vendors have "too little time to have updates available to end users."
Please consider actually reading the links before wasting space in the comments with your fact-free rants.
Tell the company you bought your software from to take a leap; they agreed to the blocking. Or you could, you know, update your security software to the latest, compatible version through the links helpfully provided by Microsoft. Seems like common sense, keeping your security software up to date...
Mod parent down -- and you too. Since you clearly did not take your own advice and follow the links, let me help you out with the facts. The blocked software was blocked with vendor approval. Microsoft's KB article includes links to download current, working versions of affected software.
Read the KB article before you start spreading crap in the comments. Every program listed as blocked was disabled with the approval of the vendor, and links are provided right in the article to updated, supported versions.
And what a failure those products are. Why, the Xbox 360 is only the *second* most popular console out there! And the Zune -- only *some* reviewers called it equal to or better than the iPod! Sometimes I wonder why they don't just give up.
"Apple didn't release Safari for Windows to compete"
... 'We would love for Safari's market share to grow substantially,' Jobs said ... 'We assume Safari for Windows should increase market share and encourage Web site developers to allow for greater compatibility with Safari,' Soleil Equity Research analyst Shannon Cross said."
... The more Safari users, the larger Apple's revenue from its own deal with Google. ... 'In addition to the iPhone, there are two things Apple is looking for--increasing overall market share to ensure developers are supporting it [Safari] and bolstering the number of alternatives to Internet Explorer,' [NPD Group analyst Ross] Rubin said. ... 'The Mac's market share is great, but we want to grow, and, in order to do that, we have to create a version of Safari on Windows,' Jobs said during his keynote. ... 'What we know is that people will love an innovative browser,' said Brian Croll, Apple's senior director of software product marketing. 'We think it will be really popular on Windows.'"
... During his speech, Jobs said that Apple simply wants to increase its browser market share, which seems logical."
This must be what it feels like to be in the spin room after a Presidential debate. Someone's distributed the talking points, and now dozens of people are suddenly parroting the exact same line: "This is an SDK. It is not a browser war."
Well, you're half right. It will be easier for Windows users to ensure Safari compatibility when Safari runs on their own systems. But this is also Apple making a play for a share of the Windows browser market. Let's review.
Reuters: "Jobs put Microsoft's dominant Internet Explorer browser squarely in his sights
MacWorld: "A second reason for Apple's expansion into the Windows browser market might be a simple matter of green
Computerworld: "a major step for Apple into the browser wars
And so on...
Provide ads for coffee shops.
You will, of course, need to access GMail through a browser if you want to enable POP access.
But you can advertise in the Slashdot comments, it seems.
See you in the gulag.
God help us if someone breaks the chip's encryption. Hackers could gain access to your vehicle's make and model, valuable information that can only otherwise be determined by taking a brief look at your vehicle's exterior.
Gosh, I don't know. What's to prevent the state from forcing us all into labor camps?
Wait a second -- that's ridiculous, you say. Of course it is, but not much more so than your post.
Nobody's talking about constant state monitoring of your vehicle's position. Where in the bill does it say that? Yes, I guess they could, in theory, track your vehicle's location, but they're not doing that.
Save the outrage for when someone actually proposes your scheme.
Apparently, since you don't have any real criticism of what he said.
I see this claim thrown around a lot but I have yet to see any actual evidence. Does anyone have a link that validates this claim?
Well, I buy about 10 CDs a month, even though I have a digital music player and I could use Napster to get my music at a lower price.
I like my physical media, and I'm willing to pay more for it.
"Back in the day when LPs were popular, you could buy a disc with just the one song you wanted."
Well, as long as it was the single.
"Now you're force fed tripe from the industry pushing their flavor of the month, big breasted, tiny brained, diva wannabes."
No you're not. The industry has always promoted the artists it thought would sell big, regardless of quality. If you're too damn lazy to look for music that you like, that's your own problem. There are hundreds of CDs released each week, and any good music store has hundreds or thousands of CDs available for purchase. If you go online, you can purchase just about any CD you want. Quality music publications are available both online and off and are filled with reviews of a variety of albums. Take advantage of these resources and find music for yourself instead of complaining that the music industry is still promoting easy to sell artists after all these years.
Following that link gives me this advice from Google:
Did you mean: link: www.freemenpics.com
Hmm...
What happened to the Cowboy Neil option, anyway?
Because everyone won't have one. This is the real world; you're not going to get universal acceptance of this technology.
And even if you could get one of these pads into every hotel, every workplace, every home, there may still be times when you need a charger. What if you're on the road? Will you need to lug around one of these large pads with a car adapter attachment?
It just seems a bit ridiculous to expect "everyone" to have one of these pads.
Of COURSE it's not on Google's site. Of COURSE the images disappear. Of COURSE other searches yield a 404.
I don't doubt that the editors were well aware that this is not, in fact, google.com; I am sure that samzenpus has a status bar.
This is a mirror of a Google results page. You may have noticed when it was returned by Mirrordot.
Why mirror a Google results page? Because as noted in a Slashdot post just days ago, new Google features are often tested out on specific subnets. If you're not in the subnet, you don't get the feature. So providing a link would be completely worthless for the vast majority of Slashdotters; besides, any link would simply be to a standard Google results page. A screenshot is really the only appropriate route in this case, and if you read through the posts on this story you'll see that multiple users have confirmed the post.
No gurantee you can see it. Google sometimes tests out new features on a specific subnet, as noted in a Slashdot post just days ago, so if you're not in that subnet you're just not going to be able to see the images.
Multiple posters in this thread have verified the post. I believe it.
Not necessarily fake. Here's why you wouldn't link to it: As noted by numerous posters in this thread, and also on a Slashdot FPP just days ago, Google oftentimes rolls out features only to specific subnets. If you're not in that subnet, you don't get to see the feature.
Since the majority of people are unable to see this new feature, it only makes sense to offer a screenshot.
Everyone who thinks this is an elaborate hoax, or that the mirror was intended to be seen as an actual Google.com page, is reading waaaay too much into this.